Once again, a discussion on another thread has brought out the questioning linguist in me. It goes something like this: Some sandwiches are named by their ingredients – pimento cheese or peanut butter & jelly or pulled pork. Not much to think about – they are what they’re made of. But how much leeway do you give named sandwiches before they cross the line into no longer representing a proper specimen? For example, most people (but not all) will now accept that a Reuben can be made with either corned beef or pastrami (or amongst some scofflaws, even turkey, substituting slaw for kraut [sometimes referred to as a Rachel]). Some will accept 1000 Island dressing, others demand Russian. Traditionally, a Monte Cristo is made with ham & Emmentaler or Gruyere cheese, dipped, deep-fried and served with jam (or it was in my neck of the woods, anyway). Many recipes now call for turkey, either in place of, or in addition to, the ham. Some substitute Swiss cheese for the traditional French cheeses. Some leave out the jam altogether, to the horror of purists. Would a Muffuletta still be correctly called one if it was made with American cold cuts and cheese with pickle relish rather than Italian cold cuts, cheeses and olive salad spread? Is a Devonshire made with beef and Gouda cheese sauce a Devonshire? Is a chicken cheesesteak really a cheesesteak at all? What is a sandwich you draw a firm line on? Are there any?
post edited by Treetop Tom - 2013/09/12 11:32:42